Want a More Representative Government? Campaign Spending Caps May Be the Answer.

The following is adapted from The Broken Contract, by Saqib Qureshi.

Every election cycle, enormous amounts of capital flood America’s electoral processes, especially at the federal level. Lobbyists, industrialists, entrepreneurs, and special interests lavish money on their chosen candidates. More often than not, the ones who get the most money win.

Unlimited campaign spending is destroying America’s democracy, an institution polluted with so much money that the ordinary citizen has been obscured, and their representative candidates along with them. However, there’s still hope that the American people could regain power and representation: campaign spending caps.

The Problem with Unlimited Campaign Spending

In a properly functioning democracy, the candidate with the ideas that best represent the citizens should, theoretically, win the election. Campaign spending, however, muddies the waters. Unlimited campaign spending makes it easy for the candidate favored by “big oil” to get exposure and support, but almost impossible for the smaller candidate supported by you and me to share the spotlight.

Without campaign-spending caps, incumbents have a tremendous advantage. Legislators who favor oil and gas companies, big banks, or unions during their terms find it relatively easy to raise millions of dollars to market their electoral campaigns.

This legalized bribery, which incumbents have almost no incentive to scale back, significantly curtails citizens’ ownership of and influence over the state. Price tags of $1.5 million for the House, $10 million for the Senate, and hundreds of millions of dollars for the presidency are akin to an element of political prostitution.

Money Makes the Difference

You might think: My candidate doesn’t need the most money to win. But unfortunately, that statement isn’t supported by the data.

Fundraising is critical to campaigns. In 2018, the winning candidate raised the most money in 83% of Senate contests. The figure was even higher for House candidates: 89%. Money affects who gets elected, what policies they put forward, and whom those policies benefit.

Without this funding advantage, incumbents’ seats would be challenged left, right, and center. The way things currently stand eliminates nearly every citizen from seeking office since they don’t have the money.

Much of American democracy is mired in this problem. Candidates from less affluent ethnicities and socioeconomic groups struggle uphill to raise the funds to compete with incumbents. Elected representatives who are effectively incumbents-for-life prevent citizens from feeling a sense of ownership over their own country. This unfair funding advantage must be tackled if we are to have governments that represent and reflect all of society.

Spending Caps Level the Playing Field

How can we limit the influence of money on our elections?

By putting campaign spending caps in place, we could cut the advantage wealthy and special-interest candidates have over candidates with less money. Citizens would be able to say, “I might want to run for the legislature in six years. I don’t have to raise $1 million to have a real chance for that seat. I have to raise $5,000, which is doable.”

As it is now, the extraordinarily steep financial prerequisites to meaningfully enter election races are an embarrassment to our democracies. Instead of letting cash call the shots, spending and donation caps would level the playing fields and encourage candidates to promote what works for citizens, not donors.

This would encourage ordinary people to feel better connected with and participate more in their governments because they’d be represented by people who value them over corporate and special interests.

Citizens Need to Take Back Their Democracy

The nature of our democracy can’t help but deteriorate if the electoral process is obstructed by people who are in office mainly because they’re able to raise more money or have a lot of their own. After all, we want to choose the person who can best represent our interests, not the person who is the best fundraiser.

Citizens have a right to choose candidates on a level playing field, based on their policy positions, credibility, and track records, and campaign spending caps offer a solution. With tight spending limits, fundraising becomes a less serious bar for those who could do an amazing job at working for their constituents. It gives underrepresented candidates a fair chance and, hopefully, reenergizes our compromised democracy.

For more advice on Western democracies, you can find The Broken Contract on Amazon.

Saqib Iqbal Qureshi is a Fellow of the London School of Economics and Political Science, where he completed his undergraduate and PhD degrees. He has written for The Financial Times, The Independent, The Wall Street Journal, and The Spectator. He is also the author of Reconstructing Strategy: Dancing with the God of Objectivity. After decades of working in government, management consulting and investment banking … and of experiencing the dysfunctionality of democracies, Saqib began a journey beyond the surface of our democracy.